Talmud do Sota 1:18

HALAKHAH: “A woman living in her husband’s house,” etc. ⁷This paragraph is from Sotah 2:1, Notes 15–23 which is the original since the last sentence, which makes the argument intelligible, is missing here. Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who are missing atonement⁸Anyone whose own body was the source of impurity, when he is pure again cannot enter the Temple precinct unless he first brought a sacrifice of cleansing: The woman after childbirth (Lev. 12:6–8), the person healed from skin disease (Lev. 14: 1–32) and the persons healed from genital discharges (Lev. 15:14–15,29–30). others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman [healed from] genital discharges, the woman after childbirth and one [healed from] skin disease, since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib⁹Who could have been afflicted with skin disease and, if female, with a discharge at her birth mimicking menstruation. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] skin disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? ¹⁰This text also is in Yebamot 1:2, Note 153. It implies that a woman giving birth is an adult and no longer in her father’s power. Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter¹¹Therefore, he should be able to dedicate for his wife who also is dependent upon him.. Since he married her off¹²Even without growing pubic hair, if he married her off she is emancipated from him., she already left his power. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply since ¹³This statement also is in Sotah 1:2, Note 91. In the language of the Babli, Yebamot33b, “the seduction of an under-age girl is rape.” Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yosa¹⁴With the text in Sotah read: Yasa. said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written¹⁵Num. 5:22. The answer of the wife is a requirement that cannot be waved. Therefore, a mute woman cannot undergo the sotah ordeal. The Babli concurs, Sotah27b, quoted in Num. rabba 9(18).: The woman shall say: Amen, amen. Rebbi Abun said, since it is written¹⁶Deut. 14:26. A man’s house usually means his wife. The missing final sentence explains that since he cannot enjoy himself if his wife is forbidden to him, she cannot hinder him in the preparations for her rehabilitation. This answers the original question for the husband. At the same time, R. Abun disagrees with R. Joḥanan and holds that only the husband may dedicate the purgation offering of the woman after childbirth without her knowledge since he has a direct interest in it. While the woman after childbirth is permitted to her husband once she is recovered and pure, she cannot enjoy the holiday sacrifices with him as long as her sacrifice has not been handed over to the Temple personnel.: You shall enjoy together with your house.

HALAKHAH: “Two robbery judges were in Jerusalem,” etc. Did not Rebbi Phineas say in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: 469 synagogues were in Jerusalem and each one of them had a Book house and a study house; the Book house for Scripture and the study house for Mishnah⁶Since every “study house” was a law school, it is obvious that Jerusalem had more than two judges.
The statement of R. Phineas is also in Megillah 3:1 (73d 28), Thr. rabbati 2:2, Introduction #12; in Ta‘anit 4, (69a 13) the number of schools is put at 500 in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. In the Babli, 105a, the number is 394.? But these two were appointed for robberies; to teach you that if anybody has the power to intervene, if he does not exercise his power the misconduct is attributed to him⁷The other judges were for civil cases. Those appointed to watch over public order are personally held responsible; therefore these judges are remembered by name. In the Babli, 105a, it is asserted that judges in a criminal court can be paid, in contrast to civil judges.. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Nathan: Naḥum the Mede also was with them⁸In the Babli, 105a, this tradition is denied.. In Rebbi Nathan’s opinion, three robbery judges were in Jerusalem.

⁴⁴For this Aggada and more aggadic parts in this Tractate there exists a Medieval copy in the Qonteros Aḥaron of Yalqut Shimˋony reproduced by L. Ginsberg in his Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah, pp. 311–313, referred to by Q. A short parallel is in the Babli, Roš Haššanah 3a; parallels are in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bešallaḥ, Masekhta de Wayassa 1; Tanḥuma Ḥuqqat 18. The entire paragraph is discussed by Rashi in his Commentary to Num. 26:13. It is written⁴⁵Deut. 10:6. According to Num., he did not die at Mosera and never was buried. In the text, the word [אל] has been added from the masoretic text and Q.: and the Children of Israel travelled from the wells of Bene Yaaqon to Mosera; there Aaron died. Did Aaron die at Mosera? Did he not die on Mount Hor? This is what is written⁴⁶Num. 33:38., Aaron the Priest ascendedMount Hor by the order of the Eternal and died there. But when Aaron died, the clouds of glory⁴⁷Who had covered the Israelites’ camp from the moment of the Exodus. disappeared and the Canaanites wanted to attack them. This is what is written⁴⁸Num.21:1., the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who was dwelling in the Negev, heard that Israel came in the way of Atarim, and made war against Israel. What means “in the way of Atarim”? That the great scout had died who had scouted the way for them. They came and attacked them. Then Israel wanted to return to Egypt and returned eight travel stations⁴⁹As enumerated in Num. 33.. The tribe of Levi ran after them and killed from them eight families⁵⁰In Q: “16 families”.. Also they killed from them four families, ⁵¹A redundant verse in 1Chr. 26:23. (See Rashi, quoted in Note 44).for the Amramite, the Yisharite, the Ḥevronite, the Uzzielite. When did they recover? In the days of David. This is what is written⁵²Ps. 72:6., in his days the just may bloom, immense peace, without moon-periods. They said, what caused us all this bloodshed? They said, because we did not show compassion for this perfect person⁵³To organize due eulogies. In this context, גְּמִילוּת חֶסֶד means services to the living or the dead by a person himself, which cannot be bought by money.. They sat down, organized his eulogies, and showed compassion for this Just; then the Omnipresent credited them as if he had died there, was buried there, and they showed compassion for the perfect person.

Had it not already been stated: “she has no ketubah”?⁴⁷This refers to the statement in the Mishnah that no children of hers, by any of her husbands, do inherit her claim to ketubah if she predeceases the husbands. Since it was stated earlier that she has no claim to any ketubah sum, the statement about her children seems superfluous. Rebbi Yose ben Jacob said, that you should not say, they fined her but not her heirs. Therefore it was necessary to say, she has no ketubah⁴⁸That means, the first mention of the ketubah also refers to the claim of the children (explanation of Rav Papa in Babli 91a)..

MISHNAH: Where were these prostrations? Four in the North, four in the South, three in the East, and two in the West, corresponding to the thirteen gates.
The Southern gates close to the West⁵⁶The gates of the Temple courtyard were not symmetrical in the wall but more to the West; they are enumerated from West to East.: the Upper Gate, the Fuel Gate, the Firstborns’ Gate, the Water gate. And why was it called Water Gate? For there they bring in the phial of water for the water libation on Tabernacles. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, the water will drizzle in the future from under the threshold⁵⁷As predicted in Ez. 47:1–5.
Opposite them⁹²Continued enumeration of the 13 gates of the Temple compound. in the North, close to the West, the Jechoniah⁹³He is called Jehoiachin in Kings and Chronicles, Koniahu in Jeremiah, Jechoniah in Esther. gate, the Sacrifice gate, the Women’s gate, the Song’s gate. And why was it called the Jechoniah gate? For through it Jechoniah left in his deportation⁹⁴Middot35b.. In the East the Nikanor gate⁹⁵Cf. Yoma3:8, Notes 317 ff., which had two small entrances⁹⁶Where the people charged with opening the large doors to the public could enter with a key., one to the right and one to the left. And two in the West which had no names.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, when I immigrated here, I took my belt, my son’s belt, and the belt of my donkey to measure around a young carob tree of the Land of Israel and it was not enough. I cut one carob pod and it filled my hand with honey⁷¹Carob syrup. In general, “honey” may mean both bee’s honey or syrup. In Arabic, דִבשׂ denotes only “sugary matter produced from a fruit, syrup, molasses”..

MISHNAH: The following leave without ketubah: Any one violating the laws of Moses or Jews. What is the law of Moses? She feeds him what is not tithed, or makes him sleep with her when she is menstruating, or does not cut ḥallah⁵⁸In all these cases, she causes him to commit a sin punishable by extirpation. One recommends to the husband to divorce her since “nobody should live with a snake in the same basket” [Babli 72a; Yerushalmi Demai2:2 (Note 129; 22d l. 59)]., or makes vows which she does not keep. And what is the law of Jews: She leaves home with her hair in disorder⁵⁹In both Talmudim, this is interpreted that she leaves home with her hair uncovered., or spins in public⁶⁰It seems that it was a common sign of a free woman engaged in prostitution to appear as if spinning in public (in the Babli, 72b, if she is spinning with a rose on her ear), in contrast to slave girls used as prostitutes who were exhibited naked in front of brothels., or speaks with everybody⁶¹This also could be interpreted as a way of soliciting.. Abba Saul says, also one who curses his parents in his presence. Rebbi Tarphon says, also the big-voiced.
What is the big-voiced? Any who speaks inside her house and her neighbors hear her voice.

HALAKHAH: “Five who wrote collectively a bill of divorce,” etc. ⁸⁵A parallel is in S̄ebuot 5:5; the reading there are noted ש. Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “And I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything⁸⁶If a witness to any contract, including a bill of divorce, signs and appends a greeting and formulates the greeting as a sentence standing alone, his signature cannot be counted as testimony. But if he writes: “and I am greeting”, he makes clear that his signature refers to the entire document. The same statement (R. Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan) is in the Babli, 87a.; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he said “I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything⁸⁷This opinion is not mentioned in the Babli.. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Joḥanan⁸⁸Referring to the Mishnah. How must a collective bill of divorce be formulated to be valid?? X divorces Y and Z U. What means “collectively” for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? We, X and Z, divorce our wives at place A⁸⁹This statement is ambiguous since no further details are given about R. Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion. It is obvious from Halakhah 3:1 that a text which mentions men and women separately, “we X and Z divorce our wives Y and U” is biblically invalid since (a) one cannot divorce two women with one statement and (b) it is not clear which woman was married to which man. One has to assume that the text was something like: “we X and Z divorce our wives, X Y and Z U,” with mention of place and date.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if he mentions divorce for each one separately he needs a text and witnesses for each one separately⁹⁰If the language is “X divorces Y and Z divorces U”, there can be no collective bill of divorce. It still can be written on one sheet but it must spell out in full that X divorces Y and frees her to marry any man she choses, Z divorces U and frees her to marry any man she choses, and each statement has to be separately validated by two witnesses.. The strength of Rebbi Joḥanan is from the following: “ ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one or that one’; each single one needs a separate opening⁹¹Mishnah Nedarim 9:7. The quote is incorrect. The Mishnah states that if each vow separately is declared as qorban, it will have to be annulled separately. One has to read: “a qorbān for this one, a qorbān for that one”. This Mishnah supports R. Ze‘ira’s interpretation of R. Joḥanan’s position..” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he wrote a separate text⁹²And using a separate sentence containing the verb “to divorce” for each couple represents a separate text for each divorce. for each of them and the witnesses signed at the end, [only] the one with which the witnesses are read is valid.” Samuel said, the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is the general statement for Rebbi Meїr⁹³The same statement is in Šebuot 5:5 (36c 1. 4), Babli 38a. It refers to Mishnah Šebuot 5:5: “Give me my wheat, barley, and spelt, (expressed in the plural) which you are holding!” “An oath that I am holding nothing of yours”, he is guilty only once (if he swore falsely). “An oath that I am not holding any wheat, or barley, or spelt (expressed in the plural) of yours”, he is guilty for every statement. Rebbi Meїr says, even if he said “wheat, or barley, or spelt (expressed in the collective singular)”, he is guilty for every statement. In a baraita (Babli Šebuot 38a, Qiddušin 25a; quoted in Yerushalmi Qiddušin 2:1, 62b 1. 76) R. Meїr states that for a general statement in a false oath he is guilty only once, for a detailed statement he is guilty for every particular item. R. Jehudah notes that if a person is sued simultaneously by several people (Mishnah Šebuot 5:3) and he falsely swears that he owes “not to you, nor to you, nor to you”, he is guilty for every single statement. Samuel notes that what is a general statement for one may be a detailed statement for another.. [Rebbi]⁹⁴From the text in Šebuot. The Giṭṭin text cannot be correct since the first generation Samuel cannot quote the fourth generation R. Ze‘ira. Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, the words of the rabbis show that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is not the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah and the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, since Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: “and I am greeting X,” one can assume that he signed regarding everything; “I am greeting X,” he signed only for the greeting. If you would say that the detailed statement for Rebbi Meїr is the general statement for Rebbi Jehudah, even if he said “and I am greeting X,” can one assume that he signed regarding everything⁹⁵Since in the baraita, R. Jehudah is mentioned as differing from R. Meїr, the question arises whether for R. Meїr there is a difference between a denial of a debt “to you, to you, to you” and “to you, and to you, and to you”. In the first case, there might be three denials, in the second case, there is only one. The implications for R. Jehudah would be the opposite.? How is this⁹⁶As the parallel shows, this interjection should be deleted.? Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah implies that the detailed statement for Rebbi Jehudah is not the general statement for Rebbi Meїr, as we have stated there⁹⁷Mishnah Šebuot 5:5. The omission of תמן “there” in the parallel text is appropriate.: “Rebbi Meїr says, even ‘wheat, and barley, and spelt’ makes him guilty for each one separately”, but nobody says “even” unless he refers to an earlier statement⁹⁸Which must have been “wheat, barley, spelt” without connectives.. How is this⁹⁶As the parallel shows, this interjection should be deleted.? Rebbi Ḥanina said, in Rebbi Meїr’s opinion, [whether]⁹⁹The necessary inserted text is from Šebuot. he said “wheat, and barley, and spelt”, [or “wheat, barley, spelt] is a general statement and particulars¹⁰⁰Since there are three particulars, he is obligated for three separate purificatioon offerings.. [In Rebbi Jehudah’s opinion,] if he said, “wheat grains, barley grains, and spelt grains”, it is a general statement without particulars¹⁰¹It is one connected statement which, if false, constitutes one sin..

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina⁸⁷In the opinion of S. Abramson, the name should be Ze‘ira ben Ḥanina, an Amora contemporary with rabbis Yose and Mana mentioned later in the text. Cf. בירורם ,שרגא אברמסון, Sinai 89 (1981) pp. 118–121.: If they saw her putting on her underpants⁸⁸Cf. Soṭah 1:2, Note 115. and the pedlar leaves her house, the thing is ugly, she should leave⁸⁹In the Babli, Yebamot 24b–25a, this and the following statements are by R. Ḥiyya (the elder) quoting the authority of Rebbi. In all these cases, where adultery is not proven by two witnesses to the act, one implies that the woman can be divorced without payment of the ketubah since the acts describe a high probability of adultery, which is admissible proof in money matters and does not need prior warning.. There is slime on her bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. There is slime on his⁹⁰The other man’s. bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. His sandal is in front of her bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Her sandal is in front of his⁹⁰The other man’s. bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Both leave the same dark place, the thing is ugly, she should leave. They lift one another from the cistern, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Both of them clap on her thighs in the bathhouse⁹¹Where everybody is naked. Mishnah 9 implies that the use of public thermal baths was separate by sex; then the reference would be to lesbian relationships which, while not forbidden (cf. Yebamot 8:6, Note 240) are generally classified as undesirable., the thing is ugly, she should leave. Ḥanina bar Iqa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, in all these cases, if she brings an explanation for her behavior she is believed. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi and he said, what of it⁹²It seems to mean that Rebbi did not want to see the courts involved as long as the testimony did not amount to a legal proof. Some commentators of the Babli read the sentence as referring to the woman’s explanation, that Rebbi would not accept any explanation except a legal disproof (cf. R. Yosef Ḥabiba, Nimmuqe Yosef, on Alfassi Yebamot,6a in the Wilna edition.)? They asked before him⁹³This seems to refer to the person mentioned at the head of this paragraph Note 87.: Even if they saw him putting his mouth on her mouth? He said, this did happen, that they saw a man⁹⁴A man other than the husband. putting his mouth on her mouth. The case came befote Rebbi Yose, who said that she should leave without ketubah. Her relatives appealed the case and said, if she is deviant⁹⁵A proven adulteress. Since there is no legal proof, she should take the entire ketubah amount if the husband divorces her.
A document in which כתובה and פרנה are used interchangeably was published by S, Asaph, Tarbiz 9(1938), #1, p. 25., she should leave without ketubah. If she is not deviant, she should take the entire ketubah. Rebbi Mana said to them, bring the ketubah that we may read it. They brought the ketubah and found written in it⁹⁶About this ketubah text which gives the wife the right to force a divorce in exchange for a predetermined financial reward for the husband, see the details in Note 226, Chapter 5.: If this X marries this Y as her husband and should no longer desire his company, she shall take half the ketubah sum. Rebbi Abun said, since she agreed that he⁹⁴A man other than the husband. should put his mouth on her mouth it is as if she hated him; she has only half the ketubah. She lies in his bosom⁹⁷For Aramaic חוּבָּה = Hebrew חיק, cf. Targum Yerušalmi Ex. 4:6,7. A less likely explanation would be “hideout”, derived from the Hebrew root חבא “to hide”. In the cases mentioned here, there are witnesses but the parties are fully clothed. or he lies in her bosom, she is deviant⁹⁸And may be divorced without claim to the ketubah.. If they embrace, she is deviant. If they kiss, she is deviant. If the door is locked, she is deviant. If it is blocked⁹⁹Not locked, but some obstacle would have to be removed before a third party could enter the room., that is a problem¹⁰⁰The wife has not lost her right to sue for the ketubah amount but the outcome of the suit cannot be guaranteed..

And even a minor. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Even a minor, even a relative. Even an underage relative? Let us hear from the following: Ḥananiah from Cartes¹⁷²In the parallel in the Babli, 27b, the story is told by a R. Ḥanina from Carthage (or Carthagena). was kidnapped, he, his son, and his wife. They came before Rebbi Ḥanina who did not receive them. They came before Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who received them¹⁷³He let the husband, a Cohen, stay married to his wife on the testimony of his own underage son. The Babli disagrees, 27b, and admits the testimony of children and family slaves only if given spontaneously, without being asked; certainly not in the court of a rabbi.. This implies, even an underage relative.

Rebbi Ismael stated: He has to bear his punishment¹⁹³Lev. 5:1., a sacrifice¹⁹⁴This supports Rav, that a sacrifice is due for any untruthful oath.. From where that one needs a court¹⁹⁵That a sacrifice is required only for oaths connected with judicial proceedings.? One learns “telling, telling¹⁹⁶The only legal texts in the Pentateuch which use the root נגד are Lev. 5:1 and Deut. 17:9–11. The latter text contains the rules of the Supreme Court and the punishment for disobeying its rulings.”. Since telling mentioned there is before a court, also telling here is before a court.

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, a person should not divorce his wife unless he found her immoral, as it was said¹⁷¹Deut. 24:1.: “For he found with her a matter of nakedness¹⁷²If the husband had proof of her infidelity, he would by law be obligated to divorce her (cf. Soṭah 1:1, Notes 13,14). In the absence of proof, the House of Shammai counsel him to divorce her. This probably is also the interpretation to be given to Matth. 19:9 and is the basis of the disapproval of marrying a divorcee expressed in Sifry Deut. 270..” But the House of Hillel say, even if she spoiled his dish, as it was said: “For he found with her a bad thing¹⁷³The Houses of Shammai and Hillel explain the same verse. The House of Shammai read עֶרְוַת דָּבָר as if it were (in rabbinic Hebrew) דְּבַר עֶרְוָה “a matter of nakedness (immorality)”. The House of Hillel read the construct state עֶרְוַת as a modifier of דָּבָר “thing”: an undesirable thing; e.g., being a bad cook..” Rebbi Aqiba said, even if he found another more beautiful than her, as it was said: “It will be if she does not appear pleasing in his eyes^171,Deut. 24:1.¹⁷⁴Even if she is beautiful in an objective way, but not beautiful in his eyes, he may divorce her. In his opinion (adopted in practice), a divorcee may be completely blameless., etc.”

HALAKHAH: ¹⁸⁰Soṭah 1:1, Notes 13,14. Was it not stated in the name of the House of Shammai: Not only that the woman must leave because of incest; from where that she must leave if her head’s [hair] is loose, if the side seams of her dress are open, or her arms stripped bare? The verse says, “for he found in her a matter of nakedness.” How can the House of Shammai confirm this¹⁸¹In the Mishnah, the House of Shammai admit only adultery as cause of divorce. In the baraita, they admit all kinds of lewd behavior.? Lest you say that one divorced because of immorality is forbidden, for anothercause she would be permitted¹⁸²Could be remarried by her first husband after having had a second husband.. Rebbi Shila from Kefar-Tamarta said: The verse is difficult for the House of Shammai: “Her first husband, who had sent her away, cannot afterwards retake her.¹⁸³Deut. 24:4.” Where do we hold? If to forbid her to him, is she not already forbidden to him¹⁸⁴If she committed adultery, she is automatically forbidden to her husband, even if she does not remarry. The prohibition to remarry the first husband after a remarriage seems to be unnecessary for the House of Shammai.? But we must hold, to burden him with a prohibition¹⁸⁵In remarrying her, the first husband would commit two sins in one act (cf. Tosaphot 90a, s.v. מה)..

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai²⁴⁶So also in Soṭah 1:1, Note 38. In the Babli 80b, R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Ismael, in Sanhedrin 21b, Avodah zarah 36b, in the name of R. Simeon ben Yoṣadaq. The latter attribution probably is the correct one; in these two quotes also the verse correctly is called “a hint”, not a proof.: “If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son, or your daughter incites you²⁴⁷Deut. 13:7. As usual, the reference is to the part of the verse not quoted; in this case that the inciting happens “in secret”.”. “Your mother in secret,” “your daughter in secret.” A man can be alone with his mother and live with her²⁴⁸In a one-room apartment., with his daughter and live with her, with his sister and does not live with her, and sleep with them with their skins touching. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: The daughter with her father up to the age of three years and one day²⁴⁹The day she becomes nubile.; the son with his mother up to the age of nine years and one day²⁵⁰Before that day, his sex act has no legal consequences (Mishnah Yebamot 10:6).. If they get older, each one sleeps in his own clothing. It was stated²⁵¹Similar statements are in Berakhot 24a.: If two people sleep in the same bed, each one covers himself with his own garment and recites {the Šema‘]²⁵²Which, as a holy text, it is forbidden to recite in the presence of nudity.; if his son or daughter were small it is permitted. There, they say: A man with his wife is permitted²⁵³Even if both are naked under the same bedsheet, since “his wife is part of his body” (Babli Berakhot 24a).. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: A man with his wife is problematic²⁵⁴Even if his wife is part of his body, he could recite the Šema‘ while lying close to her only if she would not represent a sexual attraction to him. This is not a desirable situation..